4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It will never be feasible for a variety of reasons discussed for BD.

Seriously, even if they do impose this with UHD BD, this is going to fuel piracy beyond what they can imagine. The hackers and pirates are going to love this so-called "challenge" and I would expect it to be cracked and worked around in a very, very short period of time.

The whole reason why studios are discussing the implementation of online authentication is to try and reduce piracy. The sad thing is that the content gets pirated before the titles are even released and the studios know that. This goes to show the weak link is not in the disc itself and it occurs much earlier in the production chain. It probably doesn't help as well that some studios have shifted disc manufacturing to other countries; some of which are known for piracy.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The whole reason why studios are discussing the implementation of online authentication is to try and reduce piracy.

That's undoubtedly a big reason but it's probably not the only reason.

I don't know what kind of deals were eventually hammered out but I would be willing to wager studios wouldn't mind closing the 'first sale' opening that let Redbox and Netflix rent retail discs. And while it's probably not that high of a priority, they're probably not crazy about secondary markets in general.

I don't picture studio heads staying up nights worrying about all the used discs I buy from GoHastings but they probably don't like it too much either.

[Coenskubrick]

Who says it's our inherent right to be able to simply play the movies we "buy" whenever we want? I would argue that at the very least the word "buy" should not be allowed to be used in advertising such a service, unless it is followed by something like "indefinite license to...". The word buy suggests you own what is being sold to you (the movie, plain and simple), not the potential to view it when an online service approves it.

Then again, who says it is the studio's inherent right to own the exclusive rights to do what they want with the film for 70+ years after the death of several main contributors? One could argue that once a certain level of profit was made, those rights could be transferred, or perhaps that those rights should only last for 30 years, and some people would argue that those rights should not exist at all.

That's the thing with rights, they're intended to be generally beneficial, but are always subjective when it comes down to it. I'm sure Octagon's opinion will not change and neither will ours. They simply view it as rightful and we don't. It's pointless to keep going back and forth on it.

[PenguinMaster]

Why should the creators of media have more control over their product then the creators of everything else on the planet? Throughout human history manufacturers have created products and then sold them to customers. The relationship ended there... the customers could do whatever they wanted with the product and never needed any contact with the creator again.

This is still how it works with the vast majority of things you buy. But now since the word "licence" has been applied to media, companies think that they are entitled to more. Suddenly consumers are expected to be fine with letting someone else have control over their possessions.

Many people are not only allowing this, but even defending the practice. I'm not trying to change the minds of the companies but we, as consumers, should know better. If the consumers don't support this practice then the companies won't get away with it.

[rdodolak]

Interesting article about the maximum capacity of current internet technology. Maybe physical media won't be dying off so soon.

Is the internet on the brink of collapse? The web could reach its limit in just eight years, warn engineers.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

I seriously doubt even the most stringent online authentication scheme will keep consumers from ever watching the discs they buy. It might keep them from watching those discs five or ten or thirty years from now but that's a far cry from getting nothing in return for their hard earned money.

You are missing the big picture the way things work now, a copy of the film is created when the disk is replicated and first sale doctrine means that who has distribution rights is irrelevant. But with a title key on the server all you buy is coaster and not a copy of the film until you DL the key. So it technically becomes a copy the second you DL the key (the same way it becomes a copy when you stream or DL a film). That means that legally title key availability will have to follow distribution rights or it will contravene copyright law.

that is the issue, you are not thinking of.

There are many examples, some brought regional distribution. The reality is that distribution/copy rights are limited to each country, sometimes it is the same distributor in more than one country but not always, that is why there is Netflix US, Netflix Canada, Netflix UK..... and Netflix uses region blocking (ineffectively but someone needs to brake the law to bypass it) to stop people from one country accessing the content of a different country. The same should apply here because if ACCS2 does not do that someone will sue them and the studios for distributing outside their region and win.


second I already gave a very specific example (and repeated it more then once). In 2011 Paramount released Gladiator on BD because they had the distribution rights, in 2013 it was WB because they were the ones that had those rights the distribution rights (and if you want more examples I also previously gave Alliance that had a big BD dump of NL and Miramax titles before their distribution contract ended). When I went to go look for that WB release (wanted to get it as a gift) there were also many retailers that had more than that version on the shelves.

I completely understand the consumer appeal of transferable lifetime licenses. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly expressed my preference for transferable lifetime licenses. I like those kinds of licenses. I like them a lot.

I did not talk about transferable lifetime licenses. Honestly I don't care (from the POV of it being an issue) that much for either, I am mid 40's, life expectancy is in the 80's, my dad is in his 80's my moms's parents are in their late 90's. I might die tomorrow, but statistically I am around half way through my life (and probably not there since life expectancy tends to increase).

I am talking extremely short or no time frame at all.

In a case like the guy will do the same things he would do if he got a BD or DVD home and there was no disc in the case or if the disc was faulty or rotted after a year or so - he would go back to the seller and/or manufacturer and say 'hey, wtf, this doesn't work'.

So how many times have you returned an open disk and the seller returned your money?

The only time I did buy a faulty disk the seller told me the only thing they could do is replace it (which I was OK with since I wanted to have the film) the only difference s that a different copy won't work any better.

Consumers are entitled to products that perform as sellers promise they will perform. We are not entitled to products that perform exactly the way we want them to perform or for as long and we would like them to perform.

maybe in some of the states where there are many dumb sheeples, but that is not true everywhere. Actually here (and in many other countries and some states in the US) there are what are called anti-lemon laws or in this case in particular what is referred here as as a "legal warranty" that is part of the consumer protection act.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Sure, any new system is going to have cracks and some completely legitimate consumers who do all their due diligence are going to fall through them. It's one of the reasons so many people - myself most definitely included - don't much care for change.

And I have no quarrel whatsoever with the idea that sellers need to do everything they can to minimize those cracks. People should get what they pay for.

It has nothing to do with having some small cracks, this is completely flawed design. That is why you could not give a real answer to his post and had to go with a straw man argument and down play it as cracks.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You're panicking over leaked documents from one studio and rumors.


NOTHING has been announced.

Panicking? not necessarily (and I am not), discussing it, for sure.

But
1)At the end of the day, it was from a leaked presentation and not just an unsubstantiated rumour.
2) It is not just from one studio (there was a fox document linked too as well).
3) like FilmFreakosaur said, now is the time to be vocal, once all the decisions are made and implemented it is way too late and maybe hard, if not impossible, to demand change.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Interesting article about the maximum capacity of current internet technology. Maybe physical media won't be dying off so soon.

Is the internet on the brink of collapse? The web could reach its limit in just eight years, warn engineers.

interesting? that is like all the crazy articles written by nut balls that state that physical media will be dead soon. is there a small point that is legit? yeah, demand is outpacing capcity, but like you see in bold at the top

Laying down more cables may solve problem but this will increase costs 'It is harder and harder to keep ahead,' said Professor Andrew Ellis

Is why such views like there is a limit and it borders collapse will never happen. Consumer cost, caps, throttling .... are all tools the ISPs/telcos can use to influence demand.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Panicking? not necessarily (and I am not), discussing it, for sure.

But
1)At then of the day, it was from a leaked presentation and not just an unsubstantiated rumour.
2) It is not just from one studio (there was a fox document linked too as well).
3) like FilmFreakosaur said, now is the time to be vocal, once all the decisions are made and implemented it is way too late and maybe hard, if not impossible, to demand change.

Yep, there are also BDA and BOD documents too.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

interesting? that is like all the crazy articles written by nut balls that state that physical media will be dead soon. is there a small point that is legit? yeah, demand is outpacing capcity, but like you see in bold at the top

Is why such views like there is a limit and it borders collapse will never happen. Consumer cost, caps, throttling .... are all tools the ISPs/telcos can use to influence demand.

Do I think the internet is on the brink of collapse? No. As has been said in the past, the current infrastructure can't support a complete transition to all digital media. Sure they could lay more fiber and upgrade existing infrastructure but that requires time and money and as you eluded to prices would have to increase and/or caps will be implemented. All those things are not good for a complete shift to digital (streaming) only media thus I don't think it will happen. I don't think physical media is going anywhere any time soon.

[Anthony P]

[quote=rdodolak;10763999]Do I think the internet is on the brink of collapse? No.

but that is the main premise (and the title) to the article.

As has been said in the past, the current infrastructure can't support a complete transition to all digital media. Sure they could lay more fiber and upgrade existing infrastructure but that requires time and money and as you eluded to prices would have to increase and/or caps will be implemented. All those things are not good for a complete shift to digital (streaming) only media thus I don't think it will happen. I don't think physical media is going anywhere any time soon.

agree, but I think that it is mostly irrelevant in the sense that today's infrastructure (even going back many years) isn't an issue with music. Yet at the end of 2014 (last year end results) physical media accounted for roughly 1/3of US sales


most (if not all) of those physical media sales have nothing to do with internet capabilities, it has to do with different peoples preferences and choices, some people (maybe in some situations) like the benefits that come with a subscription streaming services, others prefer DL and ownership, others prefer physical media and its benefits.

Or take it a different way, has anyone here said "I don't want that connection to DL the key because of my cap"? or "because it will take too long because of my internet speed"? no the issue is one of perspective and rights, first sales doctrine says I can do what I want with my film, this will add limits to that, but those same limits happen with any DDL , like I pointed out before look at the poor idiots that bought a DL from Target, the service disappeared almost overnight and so did possibly a chunk of their library.

The same here, even if we all had free GB internet available to us physical movie sales would dwindle down to nothing so if the internet could handle it or not is mostly irrelevant to it happening.

[dublinbluray108]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Interesting article about the maximum capacity of current internet technology. Maybe physical media won't be dying off so soon.

Is the internet on the brink of collapse? The web could reach its limit in just eight years, warn engineers.

That article suggests to me that UK ISPs and Telcos would have to shoulder tons more money to lay more optic cables to keep up to it's current capacity limit up to 2035. The research that will be carried out will suggest that of a new strand of connection for the IOT (Internet of Things) many more decades after that. That is a good call IMO as ISP's are becoming more realistic in how the internet can be reached and be accessed at the current rate to billion's of people around the world.

There is one thing that could be possible in regard to internet usage in that when every person in the UK could have access to it via optical by 2035; the timeline for rollout of even faster internet then optic could be a lot slower than expected for those same people if they are going to contend with paying higher internet bills. On the other hand with data caps being implemented on them it cannot be seen as discriminatory for individuals or for a business.

In the U.S. I just cannot think for a second that ISPs, The FCC and other legal officials from government can just cut people's internet in half instantly with a whim out of a hat, it is just impossible to even comprehend it. There needs to be an acceptable level of detail from these officials in how these data caps will be applied if they are implemented into law. Every other ISP in other countries throughout the world is probably thinking to accept right now that the internet has it's limits in how it can process it's data.

A data cap that is being introduced for internet access must not cut allowances for individual consumers; to avoid controversy from customers the allowance must stay at a maximum limit to remain stable. For business it could be a different for them because if they have a web presence online they need to have a constant internet connection to stay in business to help them pay their bills and have enough money to make a profit. If a business does not have an online facility well that business is not going to get very far in making a decent living for the owners or the employees. I am not thinking about businesses that are in HE, I am thinking of other ones outside of that market.

I still think that data caps is still a very complex area of work to pull off successfully. It needs a lot of work and convincing to make people to agree to it for the long term.

I gladly think though that physical media will not die if data caps are implemented. My Blu collection will thankfully not be affected by this in the not too distant future.

[mackna]

Originally Posted by filmfreakosaurus

not being vocal about being against this online authentication (which we know the studios are thinking about) before it gets implemented is foolish imho.

bingo

[raygendreau]

There are two organizations that are proponents for an exemption to allow circumventing access controls on copyrighted content for the purpose of making remix videos for noncommercial use. There is a short form for public comment if any of you are interested. The proponents of this exemption are the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Organization for Transformative Works ( referred to as “EFF” and “OTW” respectively).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-...-12/2014-29237

As you can see from the long comment responses in the following links, content creators and their protectors are unified in rejecting the exemption.

http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comme..._1201_2014.pdf

http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comme..._1201_2014.pdf

http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comme..._1201_2014.pdf

Hollywood is also intent on weakening “fair use” protection (from another leaked document)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7088580.html

This will not stop until an effective solution is found to reduce lost revenue from piracy. They believe the Digital Bridge will help. So do I. If it doesn't, the net result will be an acceleration of the demise of physical media.

[Coenskubrick]

What is digital bridge going to do about piracy other than turn users towards it if they want to avoid online authentication issues?

Pirated content has no limitations or DRM. Why would adding the potential to not be able to access your purchased content make people want to stop getting the more convenient illegal content?

[rdodolak]

Of course the studios don't want exemptions for space-shifting or format-shifting because they want to be able to sell you another copy, again, in another format (i.e. digital, portable, copy or D2D).

Proposed Class 8: Audiovisual Works—Space-Shifting and Format-Shifting

So, the AACS is throwing DVD under the bus to try and argue that Blu-ray needs to be protected. Somehow, I don't think they would have made that argument before Blu-ray came out.

AACS LA opposes the creation of an exemption for Proposed Class 7 that would permit the circumvention of AACS on Blu-ray discs. As discussed below – the vast majority of remix videos cannot be defended under the fair use doctrine. But even assuming arguendo that the activity is indeed noninfringing, an exemption is still not warranted because fair use has never required that a user have access to the optimum quality of images of a work such as the high definition found on a Blu-ray disc. Accordingly, remix creators’ desired use of any work will be satisfied either by the circumvention of DVDs or by the high quality images recorded by video capture software of DVD playback.

Blu-ray exclusive content is truly de minimis. Far more titles are available on DVDs than on Blu-ray discs. Blu-ray exclusive content is overly represented by special or anniversary editions that offer bonus features, and in no way suggests that the underlying work has not been released on DVD.

But with UHD BD around the corner, BD is no longer going to be the optimum quality of images.

http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-032715/

[ouflak]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The whole reason why studios are discussing the implementation of online authentication is to try and reduce piracy.

The content providers surely know by now that those who pirate are never going to be stopped from pirating and are never going to be a source of revenue for these companies.

I believe that authentication is squarely aimed at the paying market. This is a tactic to incentivize those who genuinely buy movies to continually 'dip' as their catalog titles eventually are no longer authenticated and playable. It's a way to generate a more continuous stream of revenue that normally would dry up within a year of a release.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

What is digital bridge going to do about piracy other than turn users towards it if they want to avoid online authentication issues?

Pirated content has no limitations or DRM. Why would adding the potential to not be able to access your purchased content make people want to stop getting the more convenient illegal content?

From 2013 article:

"CCC recently announced a partnership with Motion Picture Licensing Corp. (MPLC) to facilitate licensing of motion pictures and video programs by corporate clients that want to use them in everyday business to motivate, train, and inform workers as well as encourage prospective customers. The MPLC, which represents 400-plus distributors from studios and independent producers, is the world leader in motion picture copyright compliance.

“The technology is evolving to the point where people want to use full motion video on their iPads, iPhones, laptops, and other digital devices and share the files across their networks. They don’t want to be exposed to copyright infringement so they’re looking for a secure means to obtain the rights to use it,” Kenneally says. “When people have an easy, convenient lawful way to pay for the use of copyrighted material, this discourages piracy. The fact that CCC has paid out $1.3 billion in royalties to rights holders in just the last 10 years kind of proves the case.” [He just described the advantages of the Digital Bridge]

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articl...0584&PageNum=2

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

So, the AACS is throwing DVD under the bus to try and argue that Blu-ray needs to be protected. Somehow, I don't think they would have made that argument before Blu-ray came out.

And in the DVD CSS comment you see a similar response, prepared by the same two law firms and attorneys that prepared the AACS comment.